RECENT  POSTS:  » I'm pretty sure Maggie Gallagher just called the National Org. For Marriage ineffective » 379 companies that want their logos paired with uplifting music in inevitable marriage (in)equality documentaries » NOM affiliate group to give Roy Moore a 'Letter from Birmingham Jail Award' » Save the Date: SCOTUS to hear history-making marriage cases on April 28 » Wall Street's biggest put stock in equal bonds » Gross: Tony Perkins makes some sort of 'ugly baby' joke at Hillary Clinton's expense » Really, suddenly contrite Ben Carson? Because you were pretty cocksure before! » ADF links A-Rod's drug suspension with florist's anti-gay discrimination; huh?! » NOM: Marriage means putting choking hazards on your baby's toes » Video: Ben Carson is apparently one felony conviction away from fellating a man  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/02/2010

Reinhardt to Prop 8 proponents: Yeah, no -- not going anywhere

by Jeremy Hooper

Judge Stephen Reinhardt has denied a request from NOM and other Prop 8 proponents to recuse himself from the Prop 8 appeal process:

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 12/02/2010 at 7:07:35 AM PST and filed on 12/02/2010
Case Name: Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
Case Number: 10-16696
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT) I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants’ motion to disqualify myself from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, 622 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED. [7564262] (BY)

Denied, says the Justice! So too the attempts to deny justice (little "j"), hopefully.

(H/t: Karen Ocamb)

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails